RE: RE: PCELS position
"Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" <[email protected]> Sun, 21 Sep 2003 12:14:19 +0200
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.policy |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <7D5D48D2CAA3D84C813F5B154F43B155023315EE@nl0006exch001u.nl.lucent.com> |
This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand this format, some or all of this message may not be legible. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C38028.84FC8B3A Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" W.r.t. > Is PCIMe considered so complete, that it is beyond modification, if such > modification could preserve its intent while also adhering to the desires > of maintaining consistency with PCIM and PCLS? PCIMe is at Proposed Standard. If, for example because of this effort to try and MAP it onto LDAP, we find that we did some things in PCIMe that we should not have done, then, with WG consensus, we can make incompatible changes to PCIMe and then recycle at Proposed Standard. That is part of the normal standars track process. That is, we get something to PS, then we start using/implementing (the "using" part is reusing PCIMe definitions in otehr CIM docs (like the other docs we did in Policy, and like the IPsec work, the "implementing" is sort of mapping onto for example LDAP I think)... and if we find major issues, then we fix and recycle at PS. If we do not find major issues, we may advance to DS. Hope this helps. Bert ------_=_NextPart_001_01C38028.84FC8B3A Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN"> <HTML><HEAD> <META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1"> <TITLE>PCELS position</TITLE> <META content="MSHTML 5.50.4807.2300" name=GENERATOR></HEAD> <BODY> <DIV><SPAN class=353231010-21092003><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2>W.r.t.</FONT></SPAN></DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=814564302-20092003><FONT face="Courier New"><FONT size=2><SPAN class=353231010-21092003><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff>> </FONT></SPAN>Is PCIMe considered so complete, that it is beyond modification, if such<SPAN class=353231010-21092003><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff> </FONT></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=814564302-20092003><FONT face="Courier New"><FONT size=2><SPAN class=353231010-21092003><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff>> </FONT></SPAN>modification could preserve its intent while also adhering to the desires<SPAN class=353231010-21092003><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff> </FONT></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=814564302-20092003><FONT face="Courier New"><FONT size=2><SPAN class=353231010-21092003><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff>></FONT> </SPAN>of maintaining consistency with PCIM and PCLS?<SPAN class=353231010-21092003><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff> </FONT></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=814564302-20092003><FONT face="Courier New"><FONT size=2><SPAN class=353231010-21092003></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN> </DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=814564302-20092003><FONT face="Courier New"><FONT size=2><SPAN class=353231010-21092003><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff>PCIMe is at Proposed Standard. If, for example because of this effort to try and MAP it onto LDAP, we</FONT></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=814564302-20092003><FONT face="Courier New"><FONT size=2><SPAN class=353231010-21092003><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff>find that we did some things in PCIMe that we should not have done, then, with WG consensus,</FONT></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=814564302-20092003><FONT face="Courier New"><FONT size=2><SPAN class=353231010-21092003><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff>we can make incompatible changes to PCIMe and then recycle at Proposed Standard.</FONT></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=814564302-20092003><FONT face="Courier New"><FONT size=2><SPAN class=353231010-21092003><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff>That is part of the normal standars track process. That is, we get something to PS, then we start</FONT></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=814564302-20092003><FONT face="Courier New"><FONT size=2><SPAN class=353231010-21092003><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff>using/implementing (the "using" part is reusing PCIMe definitions in otehr CIM docs (like the</FONT></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=814564302-20092003><FONT face="Courier New"><FONT size=2><SPAN class=353231010-21092003><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff>other docs we did in Policy, and like the IPsec work, the "implementing" is sort of mapping onto for </FONT></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=814564302-20092003><FONT face="Courier New"><FONT size=2><SPAN class=353231010-21092003><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff>example LDAP I think)... and if we find major issues, then we fix and recycle at PS. If we do not</FONT></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=814564302-20092003><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN class=353231010-21092003>find major issues, we may advance to DS.</SPAN></FONT></SPAN></DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=814564302-20092003><FONT face="Courier New"><FONT size=2><SPAN class=353231010-21092003> </SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=814564302-20092003><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN class=353231010-21092003>Hope this helps.</SPAN></FONT></SPAN></DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=814564302-20092003><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN class=353231010-21092003>Bert</SPAN></FONT></SPAN></DIV></BODY></HTML> ------_=_NextPart_001_01C38028.84FC8B3A--